The political "left" and "right"

Chat about stuff other than Transformers.
Kungfu Dinobot
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:33 am
Location: Former British Colony

The political "left" and "right"

Post by Kungfu Dinobot »

What's the different between them, anyways?


They both seems to end up with Malevolent Fascist Dictatorships, despite being "opposites", so I'd appreciate someone explaining it to me.
User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9700
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Looks like everything you might need to know is right there.
Kungfu Dinobot
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:33 am
Location: Former British Colony

Post by Kungfu Dinobot »

Hound wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

Looks like everything you might need to know is right there.

Sorry man, but that page has too much faffing about and not much solid information.
User avatar
Sades
Posts: 9483
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 5:00 am
Location: I APOLOGISE IN ADVANCE

Post by Sades »

Click the blue bits that say "right" and "left". Or if there's also too much faffing about on those pages, Google something simpler?

Edit: not meant to sound snarky. Noticed it came out that way.
This is my signature. My wasted space. My little corner. You can't have it. It's mine. I can write whatever I want. And I have!
User avatar
angloconvoy
Posts: 2793
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Ichihara, Japan

Post by angloconvoy »

To be fair, the difference is mostly built on faffing. If you study economics or politics for a couple of years you'll get a basic understanding. Or in the absolute idiot's guide version, left places more responsibility on government (which in this political ideal puts responsibility on society by extension, security at some cost of personal freedom), right places more responsibility on the individual (personal freedom at the cost of security). Both work in theory, none in practice, and it's really more like a circle because the extremes are practically indistinguishable.

The reason they don't work is because the models assume a perfect balance can be achieved. Which is hilariously optimistic given that most people will be dicks if they think they'll never be found out.
Image
User avatar
Skyquake87
Protoform
Posts: 3986
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2010 9:34 am

Post by Skyquake87 »

Hmm...basically, someone on the political left is thought to be more socially inclusive and progressive, whereas someone on the right has a very traditional outlook based on maintaining a hierarchy in society which comes across as reactionary and regressive.

At least, that's how I understand it. Thats not to say that individuals on the left can have views on some subjects that might be seen as the polar opposite of their political beliefs on other issues.
User avatar
Jaynz
Posts: 3643
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:18 pm
Custom Title: RIP - see pixelsagas.com
Contact:

Post by Jaynz »

In the United States, 'left-wing' tends to mean liberal interpretation of the Constitution and a desire for 'social justice'. 'Right-wing' tends to mean a more conservative intepretation of the Constitution and a desire for 'lawful justice'. (Note these statements are often portrayed in positive or negative connotations by most, so I tried to distill it down as simply as possible.)

Both sides tend to go through their 'libertine' or 'authoritarian' phases. Currently the 'left-wing' is very much into the heavy-authoritarian phase in order to push a very statist agenda in order to pursue its version of 'social justice'. ("Social Justice", which usually requires a strong govermental force, doesn't tend to work with "lassaize faire" economics, but there have been those on the moderate left, such as the Kennedy, Truman, and Clinton) that have supported it.

The right-wing is currently split hard between its authoritarian wing (typically those in Washington, giving you types like Nixon and both Bushes) and its libertine wing (Tea Party and Libertarians, giving you types like Reagan). It's this current divide that's probably the most important even happening in American politics.
User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 33033
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Perfidious Albion
Contact:

Post by Denyer »

In an nutshell: the far right and far left are virtually indistinguishable. Financially, moderate left tends to preach supporting others, moderate right tends to preach self-reliance. In most other things, everyone tends to preach towards being able to do what they want, and ultimately it's all about self-justification.

With politicians, it boils down to "be suspicious of anyone who wants the job."

Democracy is basically tyranny of the majority, but it's better than pretty much all of the alternatives unless you luck into genuinely benign autocrats.

People funding political parties of any type tend to be doing so out of self-interest.

TL;DR, people are bastards.
User avatar
Jaynz
Posts: 3643
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:18 pm
Custom Title: RIP - see pixelsagas.com
Contact:

Post by Jaynz »

Denyer wrote:In an nutshell: the far right and far left are virtually indistinguishable.
Not entirely true. A real far-right would be nearly anarchist, when you think about it. Oddly enough, there's never been a goverment model for this approach, so it's kinda hard to cite examples. The closest you'll get is 'frontier justice' which isn't something most people really want to see.

(Note: Calling the Nazi regieme 'far-right' was a political ploy by Roosevelt to explain how American progressives could work with the Soviet Union in fighting it. Functionally, there's no differences between Stalin's facism and Hitler's brand.)

In general, though, extremes tend to be bad, no matter which extreme you're adressing.
Democracy is basically tyranny of the majority, but it's better than pretty much all of the alternatives unless you luck into genuinely benign autocrats.
Fortunately we don't have a democracy. :)
User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9700
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound »

Jaynz wrote:Fortunately we don't have a democracy. :)
That's actually true, more or less. The founding fathers felt it unwise to place too much power over the government in the hands of the common man. We're allowed to directly elect only one branch (out of three) of our government.

Of course, at the time, they figured the wealthy and educated elite were, generally speaking, altruistic and just and even more so that the common people are too fickle and easily manipulated.

They were half right, unfortunately...
User avatar
Jaynz
Posts: 3643
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:18 pm
Custom Title: RIP - see pixelsagas.com
Contact:

Post by Jaynz »

Hound wrote:That's actually true, more or less. The founding fathers felt it unwise to place too much power over the government in the hands of the common man. We're allowed to directly elect only one branch (out of three) of our government.
And even then it was just supposed to be the House. The Senate was given to direct elections with the Wilsonian movement in order to 'cut corruption'.. and that's worked out so well...
Of course, at the time, they figured the wealthy and educated elite were, generally speaking, altruistic and just and even more so that the common people are too fickle and easily manipulated.
Actually it was more mercenarial than that. They figured, somewhat rightly, that the landowners and artisans (the only 'producers' at the time) had more knowledge and 'political skin in the game' than the uneducator laborer that would likely vote himself the largess. (Madison's papers explicitly mention this.)

Industralization blurred this quite a bit, though, as we developed a powerful and large middle-class, something that the Founding Fathers weren't too familiar with (they only dealt with gentry until the mid 1800s'). But if owning 'productive land' was no longer a rule about voting... well, that allows in all classes, doesn't it? Including the uneducated and unvested ones.

In an ideal society, we would have upped the uneducated and unvested classes into being both educated and vested. Instead, Wilsonian politics took the opposite approach with "Progressivism", by ENCOURAGING the use of political largess to buy their favor while deliberately keeping their education low and their vestment limited to the largess. And that's how we are where we are today...
User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9700
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound »

Jaynz wrote:Actually it was more mercenarial than that. They figured, somewhat rightly, that the landowners and artisans (the only 'producers' at the time) had more knowledge and 'political skin in the game' than the uneducator laborer that would likely vote himself the largess. (Madison's papers explicitly mention this.)
Well that is essentially what I mean by fickle and easily manipulated. Generally speaking most people are not concerned with politics, not really. Most people are concerned with putting food on the table and their own personal security. That and who's going to win American Idol or the Superbowl.

The average person doesn't have time to think about the general welfare of the entire country as a whole. The average person figures that is what the politicians are for. That it's someone else's job to pay attention to that kind of stuff and that's what we elect them for. People figure that if they watch the nightly news they've fulfilled their responsibility to the government because the TV will tell them all they should know about what the government is doing and what is right or wrong in the country as a whole.

This mentality is what allows politicians to manipulate them and it's always been true and it probably will be for a very long time. People are worried about how much the shit they want and need costs and how much money they will get for doing whatever it is they do. Those two factors along with feeling secure will have almost everything to do with how the average person votes. It's why things like gun control or gay marriage or oil prices or any number of other topics that aren't actually important get used to sway public opinion.

People aren't going to use their vote to benefit the entire country, they're going to use their vote to benefit themselves.

That said you can't let that mentality rule a nation, not successfully, and that's the point. The founding fathers knew that.
User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9700
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound »

It seems funnier and funnier to me how people blame the state of the government and the country on the politicians, on the left or the right or whatever, or the rich and the corporations. It's not their fault that things are ****ed up. It's never been on them. It's never on anyone else. Say what you want about the corruption and the 1% and all that shit. If your way of life is ****ed up, it's on you to fix that. You have no one else to blame for that but yourself. A sense of personal responsibility matters so much more than defining what left wing or right wing means.
User avatar
Denyer
Posts: 33033
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Perfidious Albion
Contact:

Post by Denyer »

Jaynz wrote:Not entirely true. A real far-right would be nearly anarchist, when you think about it.
Common definitions, anyway. "Far left" tending to mean tree-hugging and personal freedom of a different sort, whereas communism and fascism get lumped in together (and generalised as "far right".)
Jaynz wrote:Fortunately we don't have a democracy. :)
Eh, the unelected parts of political machinery are as self-interested as the others.
Hound wrote:Say what you want about the corruption and the 1% and all that shit. If your way of life is ****ed up, it's on you to fix that. You have no one else to blame for that but yourself.
Assuming you're happy with life at a basic subsistence level with a lot of uncertainties and can find somewhere to do it. Land's a fixed quantity, there are economic and other structures it's difficult to operate outside (especially when kids are in the equation -- but that presupposes an administrative governmental structure, and that's before working out sanitation/water/energy), production is to a great extent automated, etc.

As far as social structures go part of the world's population thrives, relatively speaking and by some definitions, by exploiting commodity production originating from far worse conditions.

Not to say that people can't opt out of some of the various rat races, or shouldn't. Nor that people don't reflexively look to shift culpability.
User avatar
Jaynz
Posts: 3643
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:18 pm
Custom Title: RIP - see pixelsagas.com
Contact:

Post by Jaynz »

Denyer wrote:Common definitions, anyway. "Far left" tending to mean tree-hugging and personal freedom of a different sort, whereas communism and fascism get lumped in together (and generalised as "far right".)
It's tricky. Communism is extremely authoritarian and while it promises 'freedom to the workers' it never ever delivers it. It's the ultimate left-wing authoritarian side.

Tree-huggers are about personal hedonism on the one hand, and an expansive 'protectionist' super-state on the other. So it's personally libertine while demanding an authoritarian state for society... well, usual boomer wackery, really.
Eh, the unelected parts of political machinery are as self-interested as the others.
I support strict term-limits on all government positions. History shows us that goverment officials do their job a lot better if they know they'll have to live in their mess rather than above it. :)
Kungfu Dinobot
Posts: 152
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:33 am
Location: Former British Colony

Post by Kungfu Dinobot »

Dang, man, I think we're moving off topic. I know the US of A is a fun country to talk about but, ah, screw it, it is fun to talk about;)

BTW,

Hound wrote:It seems funnier and funnier to me how people blame the state of the government and the country on the politicians, on the left or the right or whatever, or the rich and the corporations. It's not their fault that things are ****ed up. It's never been on them. It's never on anyone else. Say what you want about the corruption and the 1% and all that shit. If your way of life is ****ed up, it's on you to fix that. You have no one else to blame for that but yourself. A sense of personal responsibility matters so much more than defining what left wing or right wing means.

You sure? lots of people blame Bush's spendings on the Miliary Industrial Complex for the second great depression. It may not be true, but that's the popular opinion and I'd like more insight.
User avatar
Jaynz
Posts: 3643
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 7:18 pm
Custom Title: RIP - see pixelsagas.com
Contact:

Post by Jaynz »

Kungfu Dinobot wrote:You sure? lots of people blame Bush's spendings on the Miliary Industrial Complex for the second great depression. It may not be true, but that's the popular opinion and I'd like more insight.
Ironically, the military budget was less under Bush than under Clinton (there was a big push to cut back a lot of programs while upping the tech on the Air Force, etc.). Sadly, due to the US not passing a budget under Obama at all, it's pretty difficult to tell what the expenses are in comparison.
User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9700
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound »

Kungfu Dinobot wrote:You sure? lots of people blame Bush's spendings on the Miliary Industrial Complex for the second great depression. It may not be true, but that's the popular opinion and I'd like more insight.
No, Bush's overspending has more to do with the state of the national deficit and less to do with the state of the world's economy.
Denyer wrote:Assuming you're happy with life at a basic subsistence level with a lot of uncertainties and can find somewhere to do it.
I never anything about living outside of modern society. I said that if your life is shit then you have yourself to blame for that.

People need to stop looking for someone to blame all the ****ing time. It's your own personal choices that get you where you are.

Now I am aware that there are parts of the world where that just isn't true and in those cases what I'm saying doesn't apply but in a country like the US people have become far too used to always looking for someone else to blame.

Bunch of people get shot at a school and people get all up in arms about gun control, then the government gets involved and people get mad at the government for making gun control laws. Everyone so quick to shift responsibility away from the nutjob with the gun.
User avatar
angloconvoy
Posts: 2793
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Ichihara, Japan

Post by angloconvoy »

Kungfu Dinobot wrote:Dang, man, I think we're moving off topic. I know the US of A is a fun country to talk about but, ah, screw it, it is fun to talk about;)
It's actually not off-topic at all, America is the most famous and "pure" example of a democracy with a left and right, and no monarchy, so it actually serves best to answer your original question by giving actual examples. My previous answer was mostly based around the economic theory of left and right, America is how it works and gets defined in practice.

Oh and Hound, my life was pretty shit after the company I worked for suddenly went bankrupt (the board panicked about the economy, made some shady deals and went into voluntary bankruptcy) and I didn't get paid. In a "first world" country. And there is such a thing as the poverty trap, you have to get into debt to stay in the game, so to speak. I'm only just getting into a position where I can start living in a way I would have previously considered normal now. If you've been lucky enough to never be aware of any of that first hand then I'm happy for you, but you shouldn't assume people have control over their lives just based on which country they live in. If you're middle class and your life's shit, yeah, that's usually on you, but extenuating circumstances can and do arise. Personal responsibility plays a part in the day to day (like me working to get back on my feet), but a large part of the point of government is to prevent cases like mine from arriving, so governmental responsibility is also important.
Image
User avatar
Hound
Posts: 9700
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 4:00 am
Location: Henshin!

Post by Hound »

That's irrelevant, it's still your choices that put you there. You didn't have to be working for a company struggling economically in a foreign country and you didn't elaborate on what you did to change your circumstance but blame the company all you want or the world economy for being shit, but I'd wager you didn't go to them expecting them to get your life back on track.
Image
1921\4\6-2010\1\21 Goodbye Grandma, I love you
Post Reply